Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Would the games industry be better with only one console?

sikkinixx

sikkinixx

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Jul 10, 2005
2,062
0
Rocketing through the sky!
I was listening to 1upYours and they starting having a bitch-fest about the idea of only one console.

If this was actually possible, like one console that was affordable yet powerful yet innovative, etc. Would it be better for say GE or someother big company to make the console and have MS/Sony/Nintendo simply become game studios and make the games for one console?

If this was the case, maybe debating stupid hardware issues would drop off and people would actually concentrate on what really matters: the games.

I thought it was an interesting, although wholly unrealistic, idea.
 
lets say that yeah we decided on one console. the good thing would be games would become better because they could focus on one version and they'd be super competitive with each other for sales.

but like jaffa said, it'd probably slow development a bit and some stagnation hardware wise would/could happen.
 
No. That removes the incentive to innovate, and more importantly, the incentive to drop pricing. Companies drop pricing to undercut competitors.

Now, if the games industry came out with a STANDARDIZED SET OF HARDWARE, and any company could make their own (so you can buy a Toshiba gaming console, or a Panasonic gaming console, or a Sony gaming console, and they would all play the same games, like a DVD player), that might be different...but gaming is a lot different from playing a DVD, and I don't think such a situation would be feasible.


I think the industry is best with two consoles. I miss the old Sega/Nintendo days. If I could choose, I would say Sony and Nintendo. Despite Sony's recent blunders, if Microsoft dominates an industry they ALWAYS destroy it and monopolize it; I would prefer not to worry about that.
 
As a game player, I thought this would be a good move since 1 system would play all games. Sorta like the PC does now, if you have a good enough system to run everything.

I think it's better having different priced machines. There's no way in hell I would ever spend more than £200 on something to just play video games or watch films. Just as I won't spend more than £130 for a handheld.

I do think there should be 1 expensive and 1 cheap system though, just to get both bases covered.
 
But what would be the perfect console? Judging by these message boards, no two people would have the same opinion!

I think a Wii with Blue Ray would come close....
Others would think it would be a PS3 with a Wiimote!

(Wii owner)
 
(in reply to the question asked)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~!! :eek:

sikkinixx said:
If this was the case, maybe debating stupid hardware issues would drop off and people would actually concentrate on what really matters: the games.
Click to expand...

No it wouldn't. Half the mudslinging that goes around here is about the games on consoles (more often than not...consoles/games that the children don't own) so there would still be the playground nonsense going around...that would never change, I don't think so. ;)
 
I'd like it if people didn't say I was lieing, then have them proved wrong, then have them completely forget about the whole argument. But nevermind, along with them children who don't own said consoles it's something that likely isn't going to go away ;)

Ps. What about people who don't own the system, yet play them or have regular access to them? Or is it not about what you play but what you spent money on?
 
hmm I like Praxis idea of a console standardization. So if all games could play on all systems, much like a DVD player can, would that different? It would encourage hardware makers to create better players for less, much like we see with DVD players.

I know this won't happen, but the idea of it all was interesting.
 
sikkinixx said:
hmm I like Praxis idea of a console standardization. So if all games could play on all systems, much like a DVD player can, would that different? It would encourage hardware makers to create better players for less, much like we see with DVD players.

I know this won't happen, but the idea of it all was interesting.
Click to expand...

The problem with it, though, is that unlike a DVD player which can take any set of hardware powerful enough to play back video, game consoles need to execute binaries, so they all have to have the same hardware identically; even minor differences can cause glitches. It also causes problems because you can't add functionality to one player without having to find a way to add it to all the others. And of course, who provides the SDK for these systems?

If done correctly, it could potentially be good, but I think the level of complexity will make it an impossibility without completely rearranging the industry.

Like you said, it probably won't happen :( But it's interesting to consider.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back